Study: Economic Decline Breeds Polarization

[Stevicus]

Study: Economic decline, rising inequality breeds polarization

Not that this is any great mystery, but it's an interesting study nonetheless.

When economies falter and the gulf between the haves and have nots widens, polarization becomes contagious, according to a new paper published Friday in the journal Science Advances.

One possible solution is stronger safety nets.

It's a pattern researchers say can be seen playing out across many parts of the globe, inspiring the emergence of authoritarian leaders and fueling nativist movements.

To reverse the pattern and prevent inter-group conflict, authors of the new study prescribe stronger social safety nets.

It says that during crises or difficult times, people are less willing to interact outside of their own social group.

To better understand the link between economic shocks and political polarization, researchers adapted models of cultural evolution and evolutionary game theory to predict people's willingness to interact with people outside their own social group.

The new model makes several assumptions about human behavior.

First, the model assumes that a person's economic success depends both on a person's interactions with others and on the health of the economy.

Second, the model assumes people adopt, or imitate, the behaviors of more successful people, allowing behavior patterns to spread from the top down.

Finally, the model also assumes interacting with other members of a person's in-group is less risky than engaging with out-group members.

As a result, when economic conditions are bleak -- and the stakes are raised -- people become more likely to avoid risk, opting to interact only with members of their own group.

Researchers point out that right-wing populists in both the United States and Britain enjoyed increased support in the wake of the Great Depression and global financial crisis both.

Previous models have predicted that rising levels of income inequality tend to embolden populist movements on the left, but the latest model failed to illuminate such a phenomenon.

Instead, the models showed rising income inequality tends to discourage engagement across social identity groups. Since intergroup interactions foster economic growth, their decline further impoverishes society.

"Rather than continue the unproductive debate over whether 'economic anxiety' or group conflict is most responsible for our deeply divided politics, scholars should spend more effort considering the debilitating feedback between economics and identity," said McCarty.

Interesting that previous models predicted that rising levels of income inequality would embolden populist movements on the left, but that's not really happening. The models show that there is discouraged engagement across social identity groups, which further impoverishes society. This also sheds light on why right-wing populism has had increased support.

Comments?

 

[Augustus]

Interesting that previous models predicted that rising levels of income inequality would embolden populist movements on the left, but that's not really happening.

Because there is no longer much solidarity or shared purpose the traditional 'left' alliance of the working class and middle-class liberals.

Much of the modern 'left' actively despises working class culture and is more interested in bien pensant issues like 'diversity and inclusion' as defined by Critical Theory, and disparaging their own society as being evil than offering substantial vision for economic change.

Anyone who disagrees with their ideological approach is evil/racist/stupid/etc.

Working class folk tend not to be patriotic and not share the performative, mawkish liberal guilt complex. They also don't much like being called evil/stupid/racist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Study: Economic decline, rising inequality breeds polarization

Not that this is any great mystery, but it's an interesting study nonetheless.



One possible solution is stronger safety nets.



It says that during crises or difficult times, people are less willing to interact outside of their own social group.





Interesting that previous models predicted that rising levels of income inequality would embolden populist movements on the left, but that's not really happening. The models show that there is discouraged engagement across social identity groups, which further impoverishes society. This also sheds light on why right-wing populism has had increased support.

Comments?

I'm not surprised yet another one of their models are wrong. Just look at how many of them are. We are a society of people, but those models treat us like a society of numbers (according to some economically America isn't in bad shape and most people are doing just fine - because the numbers look good).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because there is no longer much solidarity or shared purpose the traditional 'left' alliance of the working class and middle-class liberals.

Much of the modern 'left' actively despises working class culture and is more interested in bien pensant issues like 'diversity and inclusion' as defined by Critical Theory, and disparaging their own society as being evil than offering substantial vision for economic change.

Anyone who disagrees with their ideological approach is evil/racist/stupid/etc.

Working class folk tend not to be patriotic and not share the performative, mawkish liberal guilt complex. They also don't much like being called evil/stupid/racist.

Liberals and Left are not synonymous or interchangeable. People don't like Liberals partly for what you mentioned. The working class eagerly falls behind Leftist ideology that is further Left than that, such as Democratic-Socialism (turns out they like worker friendly ideologies. Too bad the Dems have been ignoring the proletariat).

 

[Sunstone]

Bad times are good times for bad people.

 

[Estro Felino]

Global emergencies like this surely create many conditions from which Soros and his kind benefit enormously...
After all...divide et impera must be his motto...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Global emergencies like this surely create many confitions from which Soros and his kind benefit enormously...
After all...dividi et impera must be his motto...

I forgot about Soros being a RW boogeyman.

 

[epronovost]

Interesting that previous models predicted that rising levels of income inequality would embolden populist movements on the left, but that's not really happening.

That's highly questionable. Left wing politics and movement have gotten extremely popular and active in many countries. The Yellow Vest of France are one example as is the rise and growth of a much more Left wing and "populist" wing in the Democratic Party which is now gaining in steam enough to challenge the establishment of the party. The popularity and massive activities of the Black Lives Matter movement and the #Metoo movement are also examples of highly influencial left wing grassroot movements. Sure they have competition and Right wing "populism" benefits from a position of strength due to structural advantages in some countries, but their reign is often a lot more fragile than it appears.

All in all, economic depression tends to create polarization and a rejection of traditionnal elites on both sides. Traditional leaders of Right wings like corporate magnates and military officers (or former military officers) are displaced by nationalists and religious leaders while on the Left technocrates and academics are displaced by activists and union leaders. The group that preserves its cohesion best or transitions the quickest is the one that seize power first.

 

[Estro Felino]

I forgot about Soros being a RW boogeyman.

In Europe, mainly.

 

[Heyo]

Study: Economic decline, rising inequality breeds polarization

Not that this is any great mystery, but it's an interesting study nonetheless.



One possible solution is stronger safety nets.



It says that during crises or difficult times, people are less willing to interact outside of their own social group.





Interesting that previous models predicted that rising levels of income inequality would embolden populist movements on the left, but that's not really happening. The models show that there is discouraged engagement across social identity groups, which further impoverishes society. This also sheds light on why right-wing populism has had increased support.

Comments?

They needed a new study for that? Anyone who didn't sleep through history class should know that.
The harder the problems get, the more people want simple solutions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's highly questionable. Left wing politics and movement have gotten extremely popular and active in many countries. The Yellow Vest of France are one example as is the rise and growth of a much more Left wing and "populist" wing in the Democratic Party which is now gaining in steam enough to challenge the establishment of the party. The popularity and massive activities of the Black Lives Matter movement and the #Metoo movement are also examples of highly influencial left wing grassroot movements. Sure they have competition and Right wing "populism" benefits from a position of strength due to structural advantages in some countries, but their reign is often a lot more fragile than it appears.

Who wins elections in America?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They needed a new study for that? Anyone who didn't sleep through history class should know that.

Yeah, that one has been known for awhile. Even attached to revolutions where capitalism has let foreign business men take over, repress the natives, and reap the benefits. And the problem only gets worse here where a tiny, small, minute percentage of the population has more wealth than almost everybody else combined.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm not surprised yet another one of their models are wrong. Just look at how many of them are. We are a society of people, but those models treat us like a society of numbers (according to some economically America isn't in bad shape and most people are doing just fine - because the numbers look good).

I totally agree with that.

 

[Secret Chief]

Study: Economic decline, rising inequality breeds polarization

Not that this is any great mystery, but it's an interesting study nonetheless.



One possible solution is stronger safety nets.



It says that during crises or difficult times, people are less willing to interact outside of their own social group.





Interesting that previous models predicted that rising levels of income inequality would embolden populist movements on the left, but that's not really happening. The models show that there is discouraged engagement across social identity groups, which further impoverishes society. This also sheds light on why right-wing populism has had increased support.

Comments?

Frightening really, given the direction of travel at least in some countries, including my own where inequality has grown significantly in the last decade (Hmmmm let me see which party has been in power all that time, could it have been a rightwing one). Add that to the likely impending crisis of brexit then I think a bad time is ahead.

Revealed: The 'reasonable worst case' if EU talks collapse | ITV News

 

[Stevicus]

They needed a new study for that? Anyone who didn't sleep through history class should know that.

Yeah, I know, but I've noticed over the past few years of watching the public debate and overall narrative, a lot of people seem to not know that which is obvious to many of us.

 

[Stevicus]

Because there is no longer much solidarity or shared purpose the traditional 'left' alliance of the working class and middle-class liberals.

Much of the modern 'left' actively despises working class culture and is more interested in bien pensant issues like 'diversity and inclusion' as defined by Critical Theory, and disparaging their own society as being evil than offering substantial vision for economic change.

Anyone who disagrees with their ideological approach is evil/racist/stupid/etc.

Working class folk tend not to be patriotic and not share the performative, mawkish liberal guilt complex. They also don't much like being called evil/stupid/racist.

Well said. This is pretty much the same as I have observed over the past decades. I don't think there's anything wrong with diversity and inclusion, but the problem is that they've forgotten about the poor and the working classes.

 

[Stevicus]

That's highly questionable. Left wing politics and movement have gotten extremely popular and active in many countries. The Yellow Vest of France are one example as is the rise and growth of a much more Left wing and "populist" wing in the Democratic Party which is now gaining in steam enough to challenge the establishment of the party.

That remains to be seen. But yes, these are hopeful signs.

The popularity and massive activities of the Black Lives Matter movement and the #Metoo movement are also examples of highly influencial left wing grassroot movements. Sure they have competition and Right wing "populism" benefits from a position of strength due to structural advantages in some countries, but their reign is often a lot more fragile than it appears.

Perhaps this might be why the left collapsed so badly during the late 70s, 1980s, and beyond. They were on a good track, gaining strength and influence, starting to realize the power to make real changes and reforms - and then, suddenly, it pretty much evaporated. The right-wing has the structural advantages you mentioned, and they've also had a great deal of financial backing to buy influence and propagate their ideals.

As for BLM and #metoo, it seems to me that their primary focus is simply to demand plain human decency - which is not a bad thing. But it's not economically-centered enough to truly qualify as "left wing." It seems designed to have more appeal to moderates and centrists, although leftists will also support them as well.

Plus, those movements are associated with understandable human outrage over atrocities which have become known to the general public. Such outrage and activism might bring about some minor reforms here and there, enough to satisfy the moderates and centrists, but it would not require any real changes to the political/economic system or change any major structural advantages of the kind which benefit the right-wing.

All in all, economic depression tends to create polarization and a rejection of traditionnal elites on both sides. Traditional leaders of Right wings like corporate magnates and military officers (or former military officers) are displaced by nationalists and religious leaders while on the Left technocrates and academics are displaced by activists and union leaders. The group that preserves its cohesion best or transitions the quickest is the one that seize power first.

The corporate magnates and military officers are still there on the right, although they might be uncomfortable with the nationalists and religious leaders on their side of the aisle. But they're the ones who invited them in the first place, since they needed the paleo-conservatives, the religious right and the patriotic right of Middle America, in order to gain the support they needed to carry out their imperialist, militaristic agenda.

There are quite a number of those among the economic elite whose political beliefs tend to be more liberal, which might also include the technocrats and academics (although that's a diverse grouping of many political beliefs, not all of which are left-wing). It would be nice to see union leaders rise up and gain the level of prominence they once had, but that's not really happening either - which is how the Democrats lost the Rust Belt.

I think a resurgence of unions and a true labor movement is what this country really needs. That's where the left needs to put their focus.

 

[Heyo]

I think a resurgence of unions and a true labor movement is what this country really needs. That's where the left needs to put their focus.

I think the "left" has to find a new strategy and a new base. There isn't a "working class" any more as it was a hundred years ago.

 

[Stevicus]

I think the "left" has to find a new strategy and a new base. There isn't a "working class" any more as it was a hundred years ago.

It has different characteristics, perhaps more found in service occupations than industrial, but it still exists as a descriptor for those who are economically vulnerable and (as the saying goes) "only one paycheck away" from destitution.

 

[epronovost]

As for BLM and #metoo, it seems to me that their primary focus is simply to demand plain human decency - which is not a bad thing. But it's not economically-centered enough to truly qualify as "left wing." It seems designed to have more appeal to moderates and centrists, although leftists will also support them as well.

I find it strange that you consider BLM as a centrist movement when it basically has a fairly anti-capitalist stance when it comes to economic policies. Though it's true that #metoo doesn't invest itself into economical debates.

Plus, those movements are associated with understandable human outrage over atrocities which have become known to the general public. Such outrage and activism might bring about some minor reforms here and there, enough to satisfy the moderates and centrists, but it would not require any real changes to the political/economic system or change any major structural advantages of the kind which benefit the right-wing.

Actually BLM has for objective particularly large social, political and economical changes. While they are first focused on the subject of police brutality and repression, they also have an extansive economical agenda.

The corporate magnates and military officers are still there on the right, although they might be uncomfortable with the nationalists and religious leaders on their side of the aisle. But they're the ones who invited them in the first place, since they needed the paleo-conservatives, the religious right and the patriotic right of Middle America, in order to gain the support they needed to carry out their imperialist, militaristic agenda.

They were not so much invited in as much as they made a takeover of Right wing parties during the aftermath of the 2007-09 economical crisis often by either moderating their position and presenting a more carefully constructed image like in France, Holland and Germany or by defeating incumbant "establishment" representatives of Right wing parties like in the US and in the UK and replacing them by, radicalising the party.

There are quite a number of those among the economic elite whose political beliefs tend to be more liberal, which might also include the technocrats and academics (although that's a diverse grouping of many political beliefs, not all of which are left-wing). It would be nice to see union leaders rise up and gain the level of prominence they once had, but that's not really happening either - which is how the Democrats lost the Rust Belt.

Which is rather ironic since the Rust Belt has voted about as often for Democrats than Republicans these years and the Canadian Rust Belt (yes there is a part of it in Canada) traditionnally votes for NDP (the most Left Wing Federal political party) or, sometimes, for the Liberals. That's not exactly a conservative bastion whose power base is more often then not in more rural areas or in wealthy suburban areas.

Working class and poor people also vote in a strong majority for Left wing or centrist parties and very rarelly for Right wing ones.